Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Communication error management in law enforceme...

Electronic data

  • Communication_error_management_in_law_enforcement_interactions_Submission2_Final_version

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

    Accepted author manuscript, 495 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Communication error management in law enforcement interactions: a receiver’s perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Communication error management in law enforcement interactions : a receiver’s perspective. / Oostinga, Miriam; Giebels, Ellen; Taylor, Paul Jonathon.

In: Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol. 24, No. 2, 02.2018, p. 134-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Oostinga, Miriam ; Giebels, Ellen ; Taylor, Paul Jonathon. / Communication error management in law enforcement interactions : a receiver’s perspective. In: Psychology, Crime and Law. 2018 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 134-155.

Bibtex

@article{f739bf309f42480bb44de59da10babe5,
title = "Communication error management in law enforcement interactions: a receiver’s perspective",
abstract = "Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1  = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2  = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.",
keywords = "Communication errors, response strategies, suspect interview, crisis negotiation, information sharing",
author = "Miriam Oostinga and Ellen Giebels and Taylor, {Paul Jonathon}",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "134--155",
journal = "Psychology, Crime and Law",
issn = "1068-316X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication error management in law enforcement interactions

T2 - a receiver’s perspective

AU - Oostinga, Miriam

AU - Giebels, Ellen

AU - Taylor, Paul Jonathon

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1  = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2  = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.

AB - Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1  = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2  = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.

KW - Communication errors

KW - response strategies

KW - suspect interview

KW - crisis negotiation

KW - information sharing

U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

SP - 134

EP - 155

JO - Psychology, Crime and Law

JF - Psychology, Crime and Law

SN - 1068-316X

IS - 2

ER -